Across the paper’s many departments, though, so many share a kind of political and cultural progressivism — for lack of a better term — that this worldview virtually bleeds through the fabric of The Times.

A guy at work likes the NYT, so brings it to work almost every day. If I have nothing else to do during lunch (the company monitors web use, so no more playing on the web during lunch) I read his issue.

What a bizzaro world. Example....the other day, Mitt R was in Michigan, talking about that he and his wife were born there, and said "there are no questions about my birth certificate". Kind of a funny line about birthers, but more about Michigan pride.

The NYT wrote this very serious article about how Mitt was a birther and went on and on. They don't get the joke.

Least interesting of the public editors that the Times has had. Each successive public editor has been less and less inclined to tackle the issue of bias at the paper, and here is Brisbane finally noting it in passing in his final column.

What, no access to thesaurus.com at the NYTimes desk? Man, cutbacks there must be sumpin' fierce. Lemme help out, Mr. Former Editor: Collectivism, socialism, Marxism, communism, Leninism, Maoism, statism.

Yes, because support of gay marriage is the rough equivalent of Maoism. Clearly so. What a brilliant observation and witty comment.

In any case, if the NY Times goes under (which it might, all businesses face that prospect), the damage will be greatest among conservatives, who will be forced to find something else to whine about. But I'm sure they'll be up to the task and move on to something else.

Some phony folksy talks about same sex marriage as if it didn't rise up from the Left.

No, I simply pointed out that it's absurd to compare American cultural liberalism (i.e. support for gay marriage) with Maoism, Leninism, etc.

But thank you for pointing out that support for gay marriage in this country is something that started with American cultural liberals. As is the case with most salutary developments in American society, American cultural liberals (a species of Americans that includes many Republicans and libertarians) can and should be given credit for their contributions to that bit of cultural evolution.

Oh, I'm sure you're not scared. You definitely will find something else to whine about. You have a talent for that. But others on your side may feel like they are suddenly in a vacuum, and may feel lost for a little while should the Times meet a bad business fate.

In the bottom of that article there are roughly 50 comments, most of which point out how one-sided their coverage. There is currently ONE 'NYT Picks' Top Comment as chosen by the staff. It's the one that blames the Republicans for not being open-minded enough to appreciate the New York Times.

No, I simply pointed out that it's absurd to compare American cultural liberalism (i.e. support for gay marriage) with Maoism, Leninism, etc.

But it is not absurd to complain about American cultural liberalism's sad historical tendency to obfuscate, outright lie about, and in all ways carry water for that same hard Left even when that Stalinist Left was busy murdering millions of its own citizens.

The NYT has blown their reputation for neutralitly. I assume they must realize it and have concluded it is in their best business interest to deny it and take no action to address it. Or, could it really be that they are in such denial that they don't realize it?

By the way, I don't think conservatives really want to start playing the "what did journalists from decades ago say and what does it say about the movement today" game. One can mention National Review's support for segregation back in the day, for example.

Do you think that the NYT obfuscating coverage of the Occupy movement wasn't in the tradition of the center left whitewashing the sins of the hard left? You know, like the Occupy riots in Oakland?

Or, how the fact that the NYT didn't even cover the Van Jones affair at all until the moment he was forced to quit?

It amazing how progressives like you feel that they belong to a grand tradition of human rights and progress until someone like me points out the skeletons in that tradition's closet, and then it's "Oh gosh, that was a long time ago...."

Civil rights. Labor rights. Feminism. "Oh gosh, that was a long time ago. We can't take credit for that now..."

NY Times is for more and more central planning and federal spending no matter what some librul commenters believe. Here is the title of the NYT Idiotorial today: "Romney's Hollow Plan - Leave it to the States".

I am so shocked when the NYT's fascist, libruls want all school districts, etc to be big failures just like most of the the big city school districts.

So, yes, the Right has the right to call the Liberals out for their moral failures in the struggle against Marxist-Leninist regimes that murdered 100 million people in the 20th century.

Yes, because support for Marxism-Leninism is central to American liberalism. Just look at the policies of Truman, JFK and LBJ, for example. And that retrospective support for the Gulags in the 1992 Democratic Party platform was just such an outrage!

Keep on babbling, Young Hegelian. You have the right to call out anything you want. That doesn't mean anyone will take you seriously, however.

"A reader still has to work very hard to find any Times policies online (though some are tucked away there), and there is still no place where Times editors speak on the issues. "

Amazing how we differ, Art and I. I think there's not a single page where the times editors and writers don't speak their opinions on what they think are the issues. Not a page. To my mind, that's the problem. Every page is the editorial page, now. That's why they are going under. It's not the internet, or the news cycle accelerating, or Craigslist gutting their ad department, or any of the codswallop they spout - There's no part of the paper undefiled by their politics. Imagine a McDonalds with a big sign: "The 48% of you who voted for McCain are dolts, are unwelcome, and must do without Happy Meals forever." The Times has made close to half the electorate unwelcome by adopting their new slogan: "That part of the news that's fit to slant."

So, yes, the Right has the right to call the Liberals out for their moral failures in the struggle against Marxist-Leninist regimes that murdered 100 million people in the 20th century.

Yes, because support for Marxism-Leninism is central to American liberalism. Just look at the policies of Truman, JFK and LBJ, for example. And that retrospective support for the Gulags in the 1992 Democratic Party platform was just such an outrage!

Convenient some phony folksy ends his roll call of Democrat heroes with LBJ because, after '68, they do put Marxism-Leninism (good Red Chinese riff there) more and more at the forefront of what they want until we get to the small c communist in the Oval Office today.

I went to high school with NYT publisher Pinch Sulzberger, no shit. It was only for a year, though, because he flunked out - he was a moron and a complete loser. I was pretty naive about that kind of stuff at the time but I remember thinking, "Sulzberger? From the NYT? How did such a high-powered family produce such a nonentity?"

If he hadn't inherited his job he wouldn't have gotten as far in journalism as Jimmy Olsen.

So "progressivism" represents indemnifying authoritarian interests in the conduct of involuntary and fraudulent exploitation, and normalizing a behavior which constitutes evolutionary dysfunction?

Now it all makes sense. We should have demanded they qualify their conception of "progress."

Does this "progressivism" also support normalization of involuntary exploitation (i.e. redistributive change), denigration of individual dignity (e.g. affirmative action), and devaluation of human life (e.g. arbitrary standards to define and preserve developing human life)?

By any objective standard, "progressivism" represents a negative outcome. It's not a coincidence that "progressives" gain political, economic, and social advantage through appeals to humanity's baser nature, including dreams of instant gratification, which include physical, material, and ego gratification. It's also clear why they defend a selective rule of law, which marginalizes Americans, most notable to accommodate illegal aliens.

This "progressivism" sounds purely opportunistic and exploitative. It neither recognizes the natural nor enlightened orders. It does not respect evolutionary principles or individual dignity. It's a philosophy which could be, and has been, rejected throughout the world and history when the people have reached an end to their patience.

Well, at least they have dropped their pretense of "good intentions", and have ended their semantic games. It's not as if they fooled all the people, all of the time. They really should speak plainly and permit people to judge their true nature and ambitions.

No need to apologize, the Red Army goose-stepped their way over the hearts of millions too. It's a socialist thing. The Norks and Chi-coms are still doing that jig today. I'm sure you were referring to them.

The problem is with generational progressives. The classical progressives expressed some noteworthy ideas. Not all of them, but some, and possibly many. They were contributors to the conversation each society should have as they develop, and as we pursue promotion of the general Welfare. The generational progressives, on the other hand, subscribe to ever-changing principles, which are opportunistic and designed to ingratiate themselves with selected "minorities", and marginalize their competing interests, in order to advance their political, economic, and social standing. Their principles are sponsors of progressive corruption as a rule, rather than the exception, which is universal.

The gays have won. Deal with it flyover breeders and move on to your next minority that you hate.

It's too late, it's over. We are taking over everything your cherish.

Blame Hollywood and Movie Producers. Glee, Will And Grace, and every fucking movie now. The gays are no longer the freaks! Hollywood Culture has destroyed you disgust of the gays and indoctrinated breeders into thinking gays are ok.

The editor's response DARED to invoke Abe Rosenthal, the last Times editor to care about accuracy of reporting and facts presented in op-ed columns. She should be hanged for that, if not for her propaganda machine.

A small minority incapable of reproducing should be careful about getting cocky. Gays can't force anything - you can only appreciate the voluntary tolerance of others. Gratitude is a lot less ugly, and speaking of classy, how's them turds lately?

"... so many share a kind of political and cultural progressivism — for lack of a better term ..."

A better, and more correct, term would be leftism, but the feel good junkies At the NYT just need the "progressivism" fix. Of course, there is nothing progressive in subscribing to a world view that brought numerous social, aconomic and human carastrophs wherever its supporters came to power.

I always wonder why these sorts of columns are not the first one that the public editor writes. They are not saying anything surprising, or insightful. If anything, this is the State of the Paper, and what should be being done in the next series of columns is describing how the paper is striving to undo the damage. But, alas, journalism is a dying art.

And the incoming editor, Margaret Sullivan, formerly of our lone progressive rag here in Buffalo, will undoubtedly be a welcome addition to the Times' lockstep staff. She carries with her a mind set that never questions democrat results, only the prospect of changing from the tired, hackneyed and failed politics of the last 50 years with a fear akin to jumping out of a plane without a chute.

In other words, this new Times' editor will cheerily promote the same old drumbeat the Times has played time immemorial.

Somefeller said: "If the best you can come up with is a discredited and largely forgotten reporter for the New York Times from 70 or so years ago to prove your point, well... "

70 years old forgotten stuff?From Wikipedia:*********************************In 2003 [<-?!?!], after the Pulitzer Board began a renewed inquiry, the Times hired Mark von Hagen, professor of Russian history at Columbia University, to review Duranty's work. Von Hagen found Duranty's reports to be unbalanced and uncritical, and that they far too often gave voice to Stalinist propaganda. In comments to the press he stated, "For the sake of The New York Times' honor, they should take the prize away." The Times sent von Hagen's report to the Pulitzer Board and left it to the Board to take whatever action they considered appropriate. In a letter accompanying the report, Times publisher Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, Jr. called Duranty's work "slovenly" and said it "should have been recognized for what it was by his editors and by his Pulitzer judges seven decades ago."

Ultimately, the administrator of the board, Sig Gissler, refused to rescind the award because "there was not clear and convincing evidence of deliberate deception, the relevant standard in this case."*********************************

If the NYT can't see deliberate deception in Duranty's case - Anno Domini 2003 - it's hard to expect anything better from it in lesser ones. Furthermore, I may add, it appears that Duranty is not discredited by the NYT, whose only desire is that we forget.If you don't see the underlying philosophy, its political milieu and why it's bad, I can't help you.

The gays have won. Deal with it flyover breeders and move on to your next minority that you hate.

It's too late, it's over. We are taking over everything your cherish.

Blame Hollywood and Movie Producers. Glee, Will And Grace, and every fucking movie now. The gays are no longer the freaks! Hollywood Culture has destroyed you disgust of the gays and indoctrinated breeders into thinking gays are ok.

Now suck it up and focus on the Mexicans.

Seem like you people need to focus on indoctrinating the Mexicans...they don't watch much Glee or Will and Grace. Maybe they can work a gay rights theme into The Fast and The Furious Part 7, in between the car crashes and the T&A.

'What if a Republican did it?'--is a hypothetical I've been increasingly applying to the media. If the story slant would be vastly different depending on the political leanings of the subject, then I have little use for that media outlet.

The NYT is a terrible offender of this. The Tea Party was covered with such skepticism, while the Occupy crowd was lauded for speaking truth to power. Bush's administration was too ideologically aligned, while no such claims are brought against Obama's. (If you see a conservative within 500 feet of an Obama official, said conservative is probably in violation of a restraining order signed by Holder himself.) The coverage of the Plame leak in the Bush admin was aggressively covered, while Fast & Furious, a far more insidious operation, was not. Romney's supposed misstatements are played up; Obama's and Biden's are played down and given all sorts of column inches to contort the meaning of what they said into something acceptable. The cronyist dealings with Goldman Sachs, GM, General Electric, and several failed solar companies are portrayed positively for altruistic reasons, while many other industries are apparently run by the iron hand of Scrooge McDuck. It's okay for Obama to hold secret meetings, but it wasn't okay for Dick Cheney. It was okay for Obama to have a giant money advantage in the '08 election; it's not okay for Romney to have any money advantage in '12.

The main standard of the NYT is the double standard, and if they can't see that themselves then the Gray Lady doesn't deserve to survive.

He is not the first omsbudsman to state that the NYTImes has a liberal bias.

He's probably the last, though, because I highly doubt any current or future editor is going to let the public editor write a 'goodbye' column or one that takes the paper to task, no matter how mildly.

I liked that video when I first saw it. I derive a lot vicarious pleasure watching someone who speaks truth to ignorant and ill-informed liberals. I came to like Hitchens more and more in his later years. He grew way beyond his earlier total flaming liberal knee-jerk views, an open-mind is a good thing.

Titus said...The gays have won. Deal with it flyover breeders and move on to your next minority that you hate.

It's too late, it's over. We are taking over everything your cherish.

Blame Hollywood and Movie Producers. Glee, Will And Grace, and every fucking movie now. The gays are no longer the freaks! Hollywood Culture has destroyed you disgust of the gays and indoctrinated breeders into thinking gays are ok.

Wow. So much anger. Sad.

Gays *are* freaks, though, simply from a biological viewpoint.1) They make up 3% of the population and therefore can't be considered 'normal' but are an abberation(sic).and2) More importantly they can't reproduce. In Nature creatures/species that can't reproduce die out.

What gets me about the gay marriage 'debate' is the response I've on several occassions: it's not enough for gays to marry but they want the 'right' to marry in any combination they want including clan/group marriages and including children.

O Rly? Yeah, really. I was surprised the first time I heard this but have had it said to me a half dozen times over the years.

Funny how they don't want to Government telling them who they can marry but have no issue with the Government telling the rest of us what we can ate, drink and smoke - providing it isn't pot.

“Enough of this irrelevant blather,” said the Secretary of State. “She’s shacked up with a REPUBLICAN. That’s more than enough. She’s a two-timing, double-crossing, little bitch, and we shouldn’t waste another moment on her sorry little ass. Give me the button. I’ll push it myself.”

If the Times goes away what are we going to use to line bird cages with? The Times, especially the Sunday edition is THE go to paper for bird lovers who need something for their birds to shit on.If the Times goes what will bird lovers do? I suppose Newsday and or the Daily News would suffice, only it would be a pale substitute.

Curiosity prompts me to ask how many here read the NYT daily, weekly, or even monthly? Or ever?

I can't say I 'read' the NYT, though I sometimes peek at the homepage to gauge the level of froth and outrage of the day's stories as an indicator of how well the good guys are doing. I do find Bill Cunningham to be a genuine, dignified reporter and interesting human being. Although I have little interest in fashion, I find his contributions entertaining.

And for making me a Thanksgiving wonder with my friends and family, I credit a Times story on how to carve a turkey.

"Curiosity prompts me to ask how many here read the NYT daily, weekly, or even monthly? Or ever?"

-- It used to be on my rotation of morning links until the whole pay wall thing. Now, I follow it on Twitter, and if it says something I'm interested in that I haven't read elsewhere, I'll click through.

That's NYT's biggest problem. I can get liberal talking points and analysis from pretty much any other news product at my beck and call. There's not enough market differentiation for me to be willing to give them money for their lack of creativity.

And, to be direct, I prefer honest partisans to dishonest ones. I can stand places like HuffPo and Daily Kos because they are honest about their hackery. I may not like their conclusions or agree with them, but they aren't lying to me about who they are. It's the same with MSNBC and Fox, I can live with the fact I know I'm getting a slanted product because they level with me about it.

The NYT pretends it is something it isn't, which insults my intelligence.

Same with Moe Lane and Red State (where I do sometimes disagree.) There's no pretense of neutrality there. They are partisans, are honest that they are partisans. It is "baked into the cake" as I've been hearing people say. It saves a lot of mental effort to know the biases up front than to have to ferret them out.

Tiger, rebutting Titus - "Gays *are* freaks, though, simply from a biological viewpoint.1) They make up 3% of the population and therefore can't be considered 'normal' but are an abberation(sic).and2) More importantly they can't reproduce. In Nature creatures/species that can't reproduce die out."

--------------Good biology and bad biology.

Homosexuality is due to both inbred traits and acquired behavior (man-hating feminists who become lesbians , men that embrace homosexuality in prison and cultivate the punks and bitches needed to please the stronger inmates).

Homosexuality at birth, is a "birth defect" in being an undesirable condition in the eyes of most parents. Like the same parents believe it is better to have a baby without a harelip than with one. Better a baby without Downs, autism, MD, hemophilia - than one with it. But the conditions, even if they lack reproductive success, will persist until we weed out the MD, cystic fibrosis carrier genes through "good eugenics" and test better for less predictable afflictions in the zygote and ensuing fetus.

"I can get liberal talking points and analysis from pretty much any other news product..."

This!

Matthew, you are the FIRST person I have seen refer to 'news' as a 'product' on this blog...bullseye.

Too many here like to link articles as 'proof' when really its just evidence of what their bias(es) are.

Those that are or have been media students/studiers as I have been since my college days back in the 80's would appreciate the perspective of a book I have touted here before - "The News at Any Cost" by Tom Goldstein.

The book was a real eye-opener for me in my early days as a 'ute' and I think many supposedly 'open-minded' folks would benefit from reading it in its entirety.

As things "stand" right now, militant gays are part of the same center-left coalition as feminists, militant disability advocates, black poverity pimps, anti-American Leftists, progressive Jews, government employee unions.

There is a likely clash coming between elements of that Coalition that hold Abortion to be a Sacrament women can Chooooooooooose to undertake at any time for any reason..

And the militant gays and disability advocates..that are seeing the improved genetic and body scan technology as a mortal threat.

Literally.

As they are finding women and families are now quite inclined to abort unfit fetuses that only promise crippling hassle, cost, and who are unlikely to meet the goals and ambitions of the parents or single mom.

In 20 years, in save a few enclaves of the Religious Right, and Ghetto mommas that don't care one way or the other...there may be no Downs babies existing. Aborted to hopefully clear the way for a "keeper baby". Same with other defects and genetic diseases.Others, correctable, like a harelip, no problem the baby is a "keeper".

Gays rightly wonder where the Sacred feminist Sacrament of Abortion will take them - if a test comes up to tell the pregnant woman - gay, not gay..gay and deaf, gay but so microcephalitic that the gay isn't the big issue in the woman choooosing to continue or abort...

lIkely though, a test that pins down if a fetus is gay would be like the Downs test....it would result in a loss of gays in the ranks.

And disability advocates hate this possible future. It is hard to advocate for the "rights!!" of Trisomy 18 babies to have tens of thousand to millions in free medical care if all the Trisomy 18 babies are aborted.

"...lIkely though, a test that pins down if a fetus is gay would be like the Downs test....it would result in a loss of gays in the ranks.

And disability advocates hate this possible future. It is hard to advocate for the "rights!!" of Trisomy 18 babies to have tens of thousand to millions in free medical care if all the Trisomy 18 babies are aborted. .."

To hell with the liberal NY Times, read this instead and become less ignorant and ill-informed all you young liberals who are open-minded enough to grow and learn.

"2016 is beautifully shot and edited, as you would expect from a film that is produced by the same guy, Gerald Molen, who produced such movies as Rain Man, Jurassic Park and Schindler’s List. It is actually entertaining, a quality not achieved by every documentary. My 16-year-old enjoyed it, so I think its appeal will be broad. Dinesh D’Souza, who appears frequently and is the principal narrator (Barack Obama is the other narrator) is a likable figure, and the similarities and contrasts he draws between himself and Obama are revealing and effective."

Airdog, bagoh20 has maintained for a while that gay citizens should be grateful to the majority for being so generous and tolerant.

Why, even in 2003, when the landmark _Lawrence v Texas_ arrived, to the much-overdue vindication of human rights and US ideals, and Santorum, Bush, and other prominent "voices" in the GOP threw a fit over it, some of bagoh20's best friends who are gay were like, "whatever, we're too busy and interesting to care about this."

And aridog, as for the comment you are all a'tither about, I often notice that what oppressors hate most, is when the oppressed have the temerity to go on offense, even if only rhetorically. if you had been demonized all your life in public discourse, simply for being who you were, you'd probably be a helluva lot more prone to "diatribe" than most gay rights activists.

Meanwhile, the caterwauling over the fact that the Occupy protests got actual coverage (though the coverage came pretty late, actually), would be comedic were it not so predictable.

Corporate and Wall Street dominance of the US economy and political system has been part of our reality for many, many years, and for a few months it became a topic of discussion. Oooooo that liberal media!

But thank you for pointing out that support for gay marriage in this country is something that started with American cultural liberals.

First of all, all liberals are both cultural liberals and fiscal liberals. There is no point putting an adjective in front of the word "liberals" the way that one must distinguish between cultural conservatives and fiscal conservatives.

Secondly, we have the "culture wars" precisely because liberals love the culture wars. For one thing, it's a case of "let's you and them fight," especially with gays in the military and gay marriage and all that. Now that gay marriage is pretty much a done deal it will be something else next year. It always is.

To be honest I have never understood all these accusations of people assuming multiple monikers that get tossed around on here. 1)The damned thing is anonymous anyway; 2)I don't say anything in the comment boards that I don't say publicly; 3)I'd wager it takes a lot more investment that most anyone who comments on blogs would be willing to give, to bother with multiple monikers.

Not that nobody ever commits "sock puppetry." I would imagine people come up with reasons for it. And btw, so what of they do?

But what I think it is, is, the charge of "sock puppetry" is an internet tactic for not dealing with what people say.

The NYT is past the point of no return. If at this point in time the pitiful old rag were to become something other than a progressive propaganda organ it would probably lose many of the readers it has left. And that would be disastrous because conservatives would not suddenly start reading the NYT even if the NYT were to be less propagandist in its coverage.

The NYT will survive nicely, albeit with fewer readers, not as the "newspaper of record," but as all the progressive bullshit that's fit to print. It is a newspaper of progressives, for progressives, by progressives – a larger and daily Village Voice. There's a sizable niche for that.

"I asked specifically for the gay-hate comments on this thread that prompted the initial Titus' 'rhetoric' ...and you didn't answer."

And yet, my comment that caused you to ask me that, had nothing to do with Titus. Because the "gays in the US should be grateful to the majority" position has appeared before, courtesy of bagoh20.

Your suggestion that he offered it only in response to a snarky comment is therefore bullshit for at least two reasons: 1)because of what I just wrote, above; and 2)even if it *were* the first time he had written it and really didn;t mean it but was only responding to a viteriolic comment by someone else, his comment would still be idiotic

As for the "pity-party" stuff, you're right I don;t know what you have incurred. But if you have been demonized in the way we are discussing, and you still then think that the "gratitude" argument is anything other than bilge, then you're a triply sad panda.

BTW, according to Politico, Jill Abramson, Exec Editor of the Times pushed back basing her claim on previous public editor, Dan Okrent.Problem is Okrent's column confirmed and didn't contradict Brisbane's belated observation.

harrogate ... if you can't fathom a connection between the Titus' comment, Bagoh20's, and yours, then we're just wasting time. Your comment about Bagoh2o's is directly connected to his response to Titus. I thought his response was humorous and I cited the "reproductive issue" part, not the "gratitude" part.

It doesn't matter, no one here, that I know of anyway, hates gays...that concept is a projection of yours and of the poser Titus.

Go ahead, move those goal posts. You still have not cited where, on this thread, gay hate was expressed before Titus' comment...which cited "hate"...and there we go, eh?

I can only conclude from your responses that you have only recently started reading in this blog. Again, I am responding to a pattern of comments by another commenter. I'm not *projecting*, I am *referencing*.

If you don't get the references, that isn't my fault nor is it my responsibility to refer you to the posts/comments in questions. I did try a couple of times to explain to you that I was responding to a recent trend of comments by a single commenter (not named Titus, btw) but apparently you don't understand. Which is fine. It happens.

harrogate .... presumption and projection is your forte'. I am not exactly a new reader. But you already know that, so your just being condescending. How sweet. You did more than "reference" another person in our little discussion...

Probably like you, some of his best friends are gay!

Titus the poser also projected in his remark about "flyover breeders" as "haters." The original topic did not relate to Midwesterners and gay hatred, but that was injected by Titus the poser.

I criticized that insertion and you jump up and Bagoh20 made what I read as a appropriate sarcastic comment about it as well.

Now you can make whatever of it all that you will...it doesn't change the simplest of the facts. Titus the poser's little victory dance & exclamation for a "war" that is non-existent among the people he was addressing...everyone here...is bullshit. But you know that too.